The Issue Is Respondent guilty of violations of Rule 10D-6.0751(l)(b) [gross negligence and incompetence] by the installation of a residence septic tank system and failure to obtain a new system construction permit with approved site plan prior to installation of a new on-site sewage treatment system, as charged in the undated administrative complaint numbered HPO-96-1003, which was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on or about November 26, 1996 and if so, what discipline should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Larry A. Ford is registered by Petitioner agency as a septic tank contractor, under the registered name of "L.A. Ford Septic Services." On July 31, 1996, Gary W. Thompson, agent and building contractor for Johnny Howard, Jr., applied to the Suwannee County Health Department for an Onsite Sewage Disposal System Construction Permit to install an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system for Mr. Howard's residence. The site plan specified installation of a septic system on the north side of a house which was then under construction. On August 2, 1996, Charles Bradley, Environmental Health Specialist, Suwannee County Health Department, conducted a site evaluation at the construction site. His site evaluation included taking soil samples from the location proposed for the system to determine the suitability of the soil and the seasonal high water elevation table. A permit was issued in accord with the site evaluation. Mr. Howard (owner) and Mr. Thompson (general contractor) engaged Respondent Ford to install Mr. Howard's septic system. In practice, septic tank installers, including Respondent, usually will contact the Suwannee County Health Department for a copy of the permit, site plan, and other particulars before beginning an installation. The record is silent as to whether that happened in this case. On August 5, 1996, Respondent completed installation of the system and contacted Mr. Bradley to do a final inspection. When Mr. Bradley arrived to inspect the system, he discovered that it had been installed on the west side of the house instead of the north side as called for in the site plan and permit as issued. In other respects, the installed system seemed to comply with the technical requirements for septic systems and Bradley issued an "in place" approval even though Respondent had failed to advise, or have Mr. Howard or Mr. Thompson advise, the Suwannee County Health Department about the change in the system's location so that the Department could conduct another pre-installation site evaluation and issue a corrected permit. If a location or any other significant factor is going to be altered by the installer, the applicable rules require that the installer first amend the permit application and get a new site inspection and agency approval/permit. In practice, a location change is simply approved or rejected by the agency during the after-the-fact inspection, without any real insistence by the agency that the change be pre-approved. However, if the ultimate installation does not accord with health standards or rule standards for any reason, the agency is authorized by rule to require that the situation be corrected and that the installer arrange for a complying permit to be issued. The following week, Mr. Howard's father, who was also the owner of the land adjacent to Mr. Howard's home construction site, complained to Larry Williams, Environmental Health Supervisor at the Suwannee County Health Department. The senior Mr. Howard's primary concern was that the drainfield for his son's new septic system extended across the property line into his property in an area he used for cultivation. A subsequent inspection by Larry Williams, who is an agency superior to Mr. Bradley, revealed that the system had been mislocated across property lines; that the septic tank was installed nearby a dryer vent opening in the west side of the house, rather than the plumbing stub-out designed for this system on the north side of the house; and that the system's elevation as installed would not allow for gravity flow as originally designed; and that the system, as installed, would require additional plumbing and a pump to operate it. The property line trespass would not have showed up in the "as is" inspection by Mr. Bradley. The testimony herein with regard to gravity backflow is sufficient to establish another technical installation violation, despite Mr. Bradley's original post-installation approval of the system, but the record is lacking in evidence to establish that there was a clear danger to public health as a result. Upon further investigation, agency personnel were confronted with at least one disputed fact. On the one hand, they had the complaints of the two Mr. Howards against Respondent and on the other hand they had Respondent's insistence that the younger Mr. Howard's wife had authorized Respondent to relocate the system to the west side of the house. As a result, Respondent denied any and all responsibility for mislocating the system. Additionally, due to the original post-installation agency approval, the Respondent refused to correct the Howard septic system in any way or to participate in agency mediation. When agency efforts to mediate the problem were unsuccessful and Respondent failed to make any arrangements to correct the problem, the County Health Unit paid $975.00 for the correction of Mr. Howard's system by another certified septic contractor. This amount came out of its discretionary funds reserved for dangers to public health. Apparently, Mr. Howard has paid nothing for the repairs. The agency then instituted this instant disciplinary action against Respondent. Respondent refused certified mail delivery of the notice of intended action. Therefore, he had to be served by the Sheriff's office. The notice of intended action advised Respondent that the agency considered his acts and omissions with regard to his installation of the septic system to be gross negligence and incompetence under Rule 10D-6.075, Florida Administrative Code, and that if he did not take corrective action within three days of his receipt of the notice, the agency intended to issue an administrative fine against him and to suspend his registration as a septic tank contractor. Respondent again denied any responsibility for his installation of Mr. Howard's system and refused to take any corrective action or otherwise to try to mitigate the problem. The agency also has cited Respondent via an August 27, 1997 Letter of Warning which had nothing to do with the Howard job. The Letter of Warning advised Respondent that he was in violation of Part III, Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, punishable under Rule 10D-6.0751(1)(a) Florida Administrative Code, because his advertising used a business name (Ford Septic Tank Service) under which he is not registered, instead of his business registration name of "LA Ford Septic Tank". No timely request for administrative hearing was received to dispute the material issues raised by this warning letter, and therefore its allegations may be considered as true. This Letter of Warning also may be considered for purposes of aggravation of penalty, if any penalty is determined in the instant proceeding. The agency has had numerous other customer complaints against Respondent. Its own investigation of these other complaints has satisfied agency staff that in many instances Respondent was doing fraudulent and/or negligent septic system work. However, none of these allegations can be considered here for two reasons. First, because these other situations were not noticed nor charged in the pending administrative complaint, no findings of fact can be made herein with regard to them. Second, because these situations were never proven in a formal proceeding and were not reduced to a Letter of Warning, they may not be considered under the guidelines provided by the agency's rules to aggravate a penalty, if any penalty is determined in the instant proceeding. See the Conclusions of Law, infra. In filing the administrative complaint herein, witnesses Wilson and Melton considered the gravity of Respondent's situation at the Howard residence and his failure to take any mitigating action. They also considered, as aggravating circumstances, the many other citizen complaints discussed above. The administrative complaint for the charges surrounding Respondent's installation on Mr. Howard's permit was served on Respondent in October 1996. He timely requested a formal administrative hearing. Part of the registration procedure for septic treatment system contractors is to take an examination with regard to the requirements of Chapter 10D-6 Florida Administrative Code, including permit requirements, technical requirements for septic system installations and the conduct expected of contractors. Registered contractors who pass the examination, including Respondent, are expected to know and follow all requirements in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of one violation of Rule 10D- 6.0751(1)(b)2. and one violation of Rule 10D-6.0751(1)(l)2; fining Respondent $1,000.00; and revoking his certificate. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of APRIL, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Koch, Esquire Department of Health 2639 N. Monroe Street Suite 160-A Tallahassee, FL 32399-2949 Larry A. Ford Route 1 Box 1705 O'Brien, FL 32071 David West, Esquire Department of Health District 3 Legal Office 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue, Box 3 Gainesville, FL 32601 Dr. James Howell, Secretary Department of Health 1317 Winewood Bouelvard Building 6 Room 306 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Pete Peterson 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Room 102-E Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's registration as a septic tank contractor should be disciplined for the reasons set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this disciplinary proceeding, Petitioner, Department of Health (Department), on behalf of the Polk County Health Department (Health Department), seeks to impose an administrative fine on, and revoke the septic tank contractor registration of, Respondent, Barbara Thompson, doing business under the name of A-1 Septic Services. Respondent currently operates a septic tank business in Lakeland, Florida, and has held her registration for approximately two and one-half years. Her most recent address is 1616 Ritter Road, Lakeland, Florida. As a registrant, she is under the regulatory authority of the Department. On November 28, 2000, the Department entered into a Settlement Agreement (Agreement) with Respondent for numerous violations of various provisions within Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code. The Agreement was approved by the Department in a Final Order dated March 5, 2001. As a condition of that Agreement, Respondent agreed that her husband, Larry Thompson, would not be employed in the management of the business; would not solicit, negotiate, contract, contact, or communicate with any customers of the business; or represent the business as agent or principal in any way. Larry Thompson's registration as a septic tank contractor had been previously revoked by a Final Order of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services entered on January 23, 1995. Based on complaints received from three consumers, the Health Department began an investigation of Respondent in 2001. The investigation culminated in the issuance of an Administrative Complaint on June 29, 2001, which generally alleged that in February and June 2001, Respondent was fraudulent in her dealings with three customers by recommending unneeded work on septic tank systems that were in good working order; that she violated the terms of the Agreement by allowing her husband to participate in the business; that in 1998 and 2000, Respondent conspired with her husband to fraudulently purchase three vehicles under the name of her husband's brother (and without his consent) for use in her business; and that by using one of those vehicles in her business, she unlawfully obtained her registration through fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment of material facts, and she committed gross misconduct in her profession. Respondent denies the allegations and suggests that the complaint is the result of an on-going dispute between her and local Health Department officials, who want to put her out of business. Consumer complaints On February 27, 2001, William Mauer (Mauer), who lives at 5212 Messina Road, Lakeland, Florida, contacted Respondent's firm after experiencing a problem with his septic tank system "not draining right" and "sewage backing up." Two individuals, one of whom Mauer identified at the hearing as being Larry Thompson, arrived around 4 p.m. Larry Thompson began using a probing rod around the 900-gallon tank, popped the lid, and announced that the tank "was full." The two then pumped out the tank, for which Mauer was charged $150.00. At the same time, Larry Thompson recommended that Mauer install a new drainfield and quoted a price of "around $2,800.00." By allowing Larry Thompson to solicit business, contact and communicate with customers, and represent the business, Respondent violated the terms of the Agreement. That evening, Respondent came to Mauer's house and prepared a work order for a new drainfield. Because Mrs. Mauer wished to pay by credit card, Respondent advised her that she did not accept credit cards, but she could run the transaction through her brother's business for the normal credit card processing fee which was described by the witnesses as ranging from $165.00 to $300.00. In any event, the Mauers agreed and charged the work on their credit card. Within a day or two, but after Respondent had pulled a permit for the repair job, Mauer backed out of the deal since the problems went away after the tank had been pumped out. The charge on the credit card was cancelled, and Mauer paid only for the pumping of his tank ($150.00) and the cost of a repair permit. At hearing, Maurer indicated that he was not "mad at all" about the service, and he agreed that he was "not really out of anything," since the credit card charges were cancelled. Respondent contended that when the Mauers' tank was inspected, there was sewage seeping from the lid and flowing back into the tank from the drainfield line, thus indicating a need for drainfield repairs. A subsequent inspection of the system by a Health Department official a few days after Respondent's visit revealed nothing "to indicate a bad drainfield." The representative acknowledged, however, that it was "not easy" to determine if a system was bad, and that a lack of visible signs of a problem did not mean that the system was in good working order. Even so, the lack of any further problems (after the pump-out) is a clear indication that Respondent recommended that unnecessary work be performed on the Mauers' system. On February 27, 2001, Patsy Brown, who lives in a duplex at 1014 Old South Drive, Lakeland, contacted Respondent's firm for a service call after she experienced "slow draining" in the master bathroom toilet of the second unit in the duplex. Two "young men" came out that evening around 9 p.m. One was Ricky Thompson, Respondent's brother- in-law; the other was identified at hearing as being Larry Thompson. After locating the tank, one of the two workers placed a shovel in the grass and found clear water without an odor around the drainfield. The older of the two workers (Larry Thompson) recommended that Brown replace (repair) the drainfield and quoted a price in the range of $2,400.00 to $2,700.00. Larry Thompson also instructed Ricky Thompson to pump out the tank. By allowing Larry Thompson to solicit work on her behalf, and act as a representative of the firm, Respondent contravened the terms of the Agreement. Believing that a new drainfield was needed, Brown signed a work order for $2,785.00 and gave Larry Thompson a check in the amount of $1485.00 as partial payment. At the request of Larry Thompson, Brown made out the check to Barbara Thompson, rather than A-1 Septic Tank Service. A day or so later, and after Respondent had pulled a permit for the job, Brown had second thoughts about replacing her drainfield and contacted the Health Department. A representative visited her home on March 2, 2001, and found no visible signs of a system breakdown. The representative gave Brown the names of five other septic tank companies to contact for estimates. An unnamed registrant then replaced Brown's distribution box for $238.00, which resolved all problems. While the representative acknowledged that "a failed drainfield is not always apparent," and that "[i]t's not always easy just by looking at it or telling if that's a good drainfield or not," the fact that Brown's problems were unrelated to the drainfield supports a finding that Respondent recommended that Brown have unneeded work performed on her system. After the distribution box was replaced, Brown contacted Respondent and requested a refund of her money. Because the request was made more than 3 days after she had signed the contract, Respondent took the position that no refund was warranted. Brown then filed a consumer complaint with a Tampa television station. Respondent says she offered to refund the money if Brown would withdraw her complaint with the television station, but Brown refused to do so, and the complaint ended up being aired on "national television." To date, the money has never been refunded, although Brown has never made another formal request for a refund of her money, nor has she taken legal action against Respondent to recover the money. On June 5, 2001, David Fleming, who lives with his wife, Zora, at 3319 Mt. Tabor Road, Lakeland, experienced "problems with [the toilet] flushing." Zora telephoned Respondent's firm, and Ricky Thompson and Respondent arrived later that day. After Ricky popped the lid on the tank and found a full tank, Respondent recommended that the tank be pumped out for a charge of $150.00. When around one-half of the tank was pumped, Respondent advised Fleming that the price would be $200.00 because it was so full; otherwise, she would be forced to pump the contents of the truck back into the tank. Fleming then agreed to pay Respondent $200.00 for a full pump-out, and he obtained a receipt for the payment. This fee was not unreasonable, and thus Respondent did not violate any Department rule or statute by charging that amount. Respondent also advised Fleming that he needed a new drainfield which would cost "over $2,000.00." Fleming declined to sign a contract for that service since he could not afford one. He experienced no further problems with his system after the pump-out. Respondent denies having advised Fleming that he needed a new drainfield and acknowledged at hearing that "there was nothing wrong with it." She further contended that because the house did not even have an air-conditioner, she knew that the Flemings could not afford any further repairs. This testimony is not deemed to be credible. A subsequent inspection of the tank by a Health Department official on June 8, 2001, revealed that there were no "obvious signs of failure the day [he] was out there." The system continues to function normally to this day. Purchase of vehicles The record is somewhat confusing regarding the vehicles owned and used by Respondent and registered with the Department. Under Rule 64E-6.010(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, a registrant must make application for a service permit with the Health Department each year and provide evidence that he or she "possesses adequate equipment . . . necessary to perform the work intended." At hearing, Respondent stated that she currently has three trucks, two of which (a Chevrolet and a Ford) are now registered with the Health Department, but only one of which (the Chevrolet Kodiac) is actually used in the business. As discussed in greater detail below, the Chevrolet Kodiac was purchased from Bartow Chevrolet Company, Inc. The second vehicle (either a Ford or another undisclosed make and model) is one she has "had for several years" that was purchased from an individual named Howard Nieft (the father- in-law of Ricky Thompson); however, the title still remains in Nieft's name. The third vehicle (an unknown make and model consisting of a cab and chassis only with a blown motor) is "one that [she is] putting together" that was purchased around a year ago in Zephyrhills from a person whose name she cannot recall. Like the second vehicle, Respondent says the "title work [on the third vehicle] has not been transferred yet," because she cannot "get hold of the owner" to sign an affidavit to transfer the title. However, Respondent also indicated that the third vehicle which she is "putting together" is titled in the name of her niece, Christina Wood. The conflicting testimony regarding the ownership of the third vehicle was never clarified by the parties. In August 1998, an individual who identified himself as Ray M. Thompson ("Ray"), approached Mark Pike (Pike), a commercial salesman with Bartow Chevrolet Company, Inc., for the purpose of purchasing a medium duty truck for his septic tank business. "Ray" gave a local address of 1400 Spivey Road, Lakeland, Florida. "Ray" eventually agreed to purchase (and finance through the dealership) a 1998 Chevrolet Kodiac truck on September 10, 1998, for approximately $35,000.00. In the course of the transaction, Pike requested a driver's license and insurance card from "Ray" to verify his identity. "Ray" gave Pike a North Carolina driver's license issued on August 18, 1997, to Ray M. Thompson. The Chevrolet Kodiac was later titled by the State to Ray M. Thompson. Ray M. Thompson is the brother of Larry Thompson, and the brother-in-law of Respondent. At the hearing, Pike identified Larry Thompson as the person who actually purchased the vehicle in September 1998 and used the name and identification of Ray M. Thompson. At hearing, the real Ray Thompson denied that he had purchased the vehicle, and after learning about the transaction, he filed paperwork with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) cancelling his name on the registration of the vehicle. The same vehicle is now being used by Respondent in her business. Although a "blond-haired lady" was with "Ray" when he signed the paperwork to purchase the truck, and Respondent has that color of hair, Pike could not identify Respondent as being that person. Therefore, it is found that there is less than clear and convincing evidence that Respondent participated in the transaction or conspired with her husband to deceive the dealership or her brother-in-law. On September 27, 2000, an individual who identified himself as Ray M. Thompson ("Ray") visited Bartow Ford Company and spoke with Gregory Wade, a salesman, about the purchase of a new Ford F350 pickup truck for his septic tank business. "Ray" was accompanied by an unidentified female and gave an address of 1616 Ritter Road, Lakeland, Florida, the address of the mother of Ray and Larry Thompson, as well as Respondent and her husband. The same day, "Ray" traded in a 1999 Dodge Durango on a new 2001 F350 Ford pickup truck for approximately $41,000.00, less the net value of the trade-in. During the course of the transaction, "Ray" produced an out-of-state driver's license identifying himself as Ray M. Thompson, and an insurance identification card bearing the same name. At the hearing, although both Respondent and her husband were in the hearing room, Wade was unable to identify either one as the individuals who participated in the transaction on September 27, 2000. The vehicle was later titled by the State to Ray M. Thompson. After learning about the transaction, the real Ray M. Thompson filed paperwork with the DHSMV to cancel the registration. Given these circumstances, there is less than clear and convincing evidence that Respondent conspired with her husband to fraudulently purchase the vehicle under the name of her husband's brother, as alleged in Count VI of the complaint. Count V of the complaint also alleges that "sometime during 1998" Respondent conspired with her husband to "fraudulently purchase a pick-up truck, a Dodge Durango, from Bartow Chevrolet [Company, Inc.] under the name of Ray Thompson and without his permission." Except for the evidence which shows that a Dodge Durango was traded in on the Ford F350 truck in September 2000, as noted in Finding of Fact 21, there is no other evidence to support this allegation. Violation of Agreement At hearing, Larry Thompson maintained that after the Agreement was executed in November 2000, he has limited his participation with his wife's business to merely gassing up vehicles and performing maintenance work on the firm's vehicles, when necessary. He denies being employed by his wife or having any contact with customers. In addition, Ricky Thompson, Larry's brother, also denied that Larry Thompson ever accompanied him on service calls. However, the more credible evidence, as detailed in Findings of Fact 4 and 8, is that Larry Thompson performed work for his wife on two occasions in violation of the Agreement. Obtaining Registration by Fraudulent Means Count IV of the complaint alleges that by continuing to use the 1998 Kodiac truck in her business without the permission of the real Ray Thompson, Respondent "falsely indicated and represented to the Department that [she] had means, ability and equipment necessary for the operation of [her] business," that she obtained her registration through fraud or misrepresentation, concealment of material facts, and she committed gross misconduct in the pursuit of her profession. In this regard, Respondent's application for registration, date of licensure, and annual application for a service permit are not of record. While Respondent admitted that she is using the Kodiac in her business, there is less than clear and convincing evidence in the record to support this allegation. This is especially true since there was no evidence that a registrant must own (or have titled in his or her name) every vehicle used in the contracting business, or that Respondent did not have the financial means, ability, or equipment to engage in the business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order imposing a $500.00 fine and revoking Respondent's registration as a septic tank contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (850) 488-9675, SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Roland Reis, Esquire Polk County Health Department Department of Health 1290 Golfview Avenue, Fourth Floor Bartow, Florida 33830-6740 Jack T. Edmund, Esquire 1125 East Main Street Bartow, Florida 33830-5004
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should have his license suspended and an administrative fine imposed for allegedly committing fraud and deceit in the practice of contracting, providing septic tank contracting services without an operating permit, and submitting a fabricated building permit number to obtain a final inspection approval of a job.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Generally When the events herein occurred, Respondent, Willie A. Harmon, operated a septic tank business in Santa Rosa County, Florida, under the name of Willie Harmon's Septic Tank Service. That profession is regulated by Petitioner, Department of Health (Department). In this proceeding, the Department alleges that Respondent violated its rules law on three separate occasions in 1995, 1996, and 1997. Each alleged violation is discussed below. The Iris Lane Citation In April 1997, William M. Newell, who manages various rental properties in Santa Rosa County (County), hired Respondent to pump out a backed up septic tank system located at 1824 Iris Lane, Navarre, Florida. The system was an older one with a sand bottom, a type sometimes found in the southern part of the County. The job was performed by Respondent on April 21, 1997, and it called for Respondent to pump the tank dry. Respondent received payment from Newell for these services. On the evening of April 22, 1997, Newell returned to the premises and found the lid back on the system. Assuming that the job was completed, he telephoned the Santa Rosa County Health Department to request an inspection of the tank, as required by law. Larry Thomas, an environmental supervisor, inspected the tank on April 23, 1997, and found approximately five inches of solids still remaining in the tank and the remainder of the tank full of water. A properly pumped out tank would be dry. Newell immediately contacted Superior Septic Tank Service in Crestview, Florida, to repump the tank. Earl Raybon, an employee of that firm, inspected the tank and assumed it had not been pumped out since it was full of water and had a layer of sludge at the bottom. Raybon observed that the walls and lid of the system were "in good shape," but it needed a replacement liner. Raybon then repumped the tank until the system was dry. When Respondent was later asked by Newell and Thomas why the tank had sludge and water, Respondent advised them that water and solids must have bled (leached) back into the tank through the sand bottom. Although it is not uncommon for groundwater to seep back into a tank through a sand bottom, it is highly unlikely that the tank would completely refill with water within two days, unless the area experienced heavy rains. There was no evidence that this occurred. Further, it is not possible for solids to seep back into the tank under any circumstances. Respondent's explanation that this accounted for the solids in the tank is not deemed to be credible. Respondent also explained that in order to prevent the ingestion of sand into his equipment, he had to leave some sludge at the bottom of the tank. Raybon established, however, that under current industry standards, it is the responsibility of the contractor to pump a tank dry, even if one gets sand in his equipment. Consistent with that practice, Raybon pumped the tank dry. Respondent finally contended that if he had pumped the tank dry, the sides of the system might have collapsed. This occurs, however, only when there is water pressure on both sides of the system. Because the second contractor pumped the system dry without incident, it is found that a collapsing system was not a valid concern. By failing to pump the tank dry, as required by industry standards, Respondent committed fraud and deceit on the customer. In addition, this misconduct caused the customer to incur monetary harm in that the customer had to pay a second contractor to finish the job. The Deer Lane Citation In early December 1995, Respondent installed a new septic tank system on a mobile home lot at 9050 Deer Lane, Navarre, Florida. Before the final written inspection approval for a new septic tank system can be given by the Department, the building permit must be attached to the application. It is the responsibility of the owner, and not the septic tank contractor, to obtain the building permit. Alternatively, if the lot is still undeveloped, as it was here, approval of the system may be obtained without a building permit by simply securing a yellow- green temporary sticker from the Department. On December 5, 1995, Respondent submitted paperwork to the Santa Rosa County Health Department reflecting that building permit number 95-608 had been issued to the owner. He contended that this number was obtained over the telephone from the owner, and this claim was not contradicted. However, a building permit was not issued to the owner until December 7, 1995, and it carried permit number 95-4144. The local department immediately discovered the difference in the two numbers and charged Respondent with fraud and deceit. There was no intent on the part of Respondent to commit fraud or deceit on the Department. Indeed, he could have obtained an inspection and final approval without a building permit being issued since the lot was still undeveloped. Moreover, he had no financial incentive to fabricate the permit number. Therefore, it is found that he did not commit fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting. The Webster Street Citation In order to perform septic tank services, a contractor must be registered with a county health department. By having an operating permit from one county health department, a contractor may perform services in other counties as well. Therefore, an operating permit in Okaloosa County would enable Respondent to perform services in Santa Rosa County. On June 27, 1996, Respondent partially pumped a tank at 7843 Webster Street, Navarre, Florida. At that time, he held no active registrations to perform the work. He eventually obtained an operating permit from the Okaloosa County Health Department on July 29, 1996. According to a representative of the Okaloosa County Health Department, it allows contractors who have previously had permits issued by that Department to work without a valid registration while their applications are being processed. This process usually, but not always, takes no more than two or three weeks. Whether Respondent had previously been issued a registration by the Okaloosa County Health Department is not of record. It is also unknown when Respondent filed his application with that Department, although he says that he had an application pending when the questioned job was performed. Because of these record deficiencies, it is found that, even though Respondent had no valid operating permit on June 27, 1996, he rightly assumed that such work was permissible under then existing policy of the Okaloosa County Health Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Rules 64E-6.022(1)(k) and (l)2., Florida Administrative Code, and that Respondent be assessed a $500.00 administrative fine. The charges in the two citations should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire 1295 West Fairfield Drive Pensacola, Florida 32501 Willie A. Harmon Post Office Box 733 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548 Pete Peterson, Esquire Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Should Respondent be fined $500.00 for initiating repairs to an on-site sewage treatment and disposal system before obtaining a permit?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is engaged in the septic tank contracting business as a contractor licensed under Chapter 489, Part III, Florida Statutes. He does business as "Alpha." In association with his business Respondent provided services to residents at 224 North Orange Avenue, Orange City, Florida. This was related to a failed on-site sewage treatment and disposal system at that residence. To assist in providing repair service to the residence in Orange City, Florida, Respondent engaged Andy Trapp. Mr. Trapp's business is to assist septic tank contractors in obtaining necessary permits to perform septic tank contracting services. Mr. Trapp's occupation includes field work involving soil testing, measurements, and completion of necessary paperwork to assist the septic tank contractor in obtaining necessary permits. As permitting agency, usually Petitioner would accept applications submitted by Mr. Trapp in relation to the application for a permit to repair on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems, in that Mr. Trapp is recognized by Petitioner as being sufficiently qualified to submit information in support of an application for permit. On March 27, 1998, Mr. Trapp submitted an application for a permit to repair the on-site sewage treatment and disposal system at the Orange City, Florida, address, to include supporting information concerning the results of soil testing. That application was accompanied by the necessary fee to obtain a permit. The application was delivered to Petitioner's Daytona Beach, Florida, office as a matter of convenience to Mr. Trapp. Mr. Trapp realized that the actual processing of the permit application would be conducted by Petitioner's Deland, Florida, office. In that connection, Mr. Trapp realized that the application that he had submitted to the Daytona Beach office would be forwarded by interoffice transmittal to the Deland office, which would cause a delay in the processing of the application. In his experience Mr. Trapp has filed applications with the Daytona Beach office to be subsequently transmitted to the New Smyrna Beach office of the Petitioner, which ordinarily can be done late on the same day that the application was presented or by the next day. James McRae is an environmental supervisor for the Volusia Health Department, Environmental Health Office in Deland, Florida. It is his office that had ultimate responsibility for considering, and if appropriate, issuing a permit allowing Respondent to conduct necessary repairs of the failed on-site sewage treatment and disposal system at the Orange City, Florida address. Mr. McRae confirmed that the permit application, as submitted by Mr. Trapp for the repairs, had been received by the Deland office on March 30, 1998. In addition, the accompanying $57.00 fee had been transferred from the Daytona Beach office to the Deland office, as was customary, the custom being that the funds in support of an application would ultimately be received in the office from which the application would be processed and a permit number assigned, as applicable. Upon receipt of the application in the Deland office, a receipt was generated. Information concerning the permit application was placed in the computer. Assessment of the application was assigned to William Vander Lugt, Environmental Specialists II, who is part of the field staff for the Petitioner's Deland office. Beyond Mr. Vander Lugt's assignment to consider the application for the permit for the Orange City, Florida project, it was expected that he would do any necessary field work involving an inspection and any necessary soil analysis. If satisfied that the site was appropriate to effect repairs to the failed on-site sewage treatment and disposal system, Mr. Vander Lugt would issue a permit subject to approval by Mr. McRae. Mr. McRae identified that the usual turn around time for issuing permits is two to three days, assuming that the permit was applied for at Petitioner's office which would be responsible for assessing the application. In this instance the permit had been applied for at another office which delayed consideration of the permit application by the Deland office. The permit was approved on April 2, 1998, within three days of its receipt by the Deland office. Before the permit was issued, Respondent, through his employees, had commenced the repairs at the Orange City, Florida, address. The commencement of repairs was verified by an on-site inspection performed by Mr. Vander Lugt, on March 31, 1998. Although the supporting information presented by Mr. Trapp was in order and the fee had been paid, and there was no indication that any other problems existed which would prohibit the repairs from being conducted, Respondent was premature in commencing the work before the permit issued, and was unjustified in that choice.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be issued which imposes a $500.00 fine against Respondent for initiating a repair of an on-site sewage treatment and disposal system without first obtaining a permit to do the work. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Charlene Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Michael J. Jedware Post Office Box 390073 Deltona, Florida 32739-0073 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue Whether a septic tank construction permit should be issued by the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, for use by the Respondent, Alex Rutkowski, owner of Lot number 6, Block E, Carlton Terrace Subdivision First Addition, in Clearwater, Florida. Whether the filling in of Lot number 6 and the construction of a septic tank will damage the residence of the Petitioner, Elinor Burger, on Lot number 5.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Alex Rutkowski, and his wife own Lot number 6, Block E, Carlton Terrace Subdivision, First Addition, in Clearwater, Florida in which the sixteen (16) lots are approximately 70 feet wide and 105 to 150 feet deep. The soil in the area is Mayakka Fine Sand, a poorly drained soil which has a water table normally at a depth of ten (10) to thirty (30) inches below ground surface, but which rises to the surface for a short time during wet periods. After respondent Rutkowski's initial application for a permit to install a septic tank on Lot number 6 had been denied, he employed an engineer and filed a plan for proposed site modification. The plan was received by the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, and Rutkowski was notified on December 6, 1979, that the plan to remove the existing land fill, replace it with Astatula Fine Sand and raise the building pad appeared to be acceptable for the issuance of a septic tank construction permit, but that no further action on the application for the permit could be taken until after an administrative ruling on a protest by a neighboring property owner (Respondent' Exhibits 1, 4 and 5). The Pinellas County Engineering Department had approved the drainage for the area on October 9, 1979 (Respondent's Exhibit 2). The Petitioner, Elinor Burger, has lived on Lot number 5, which adjoins Lot number 6, since 1957. When there is a heavy rain of three (3) to four (4) inches, her septic tank fails to operate, and water stands in her back yard. She has seen and smelled polluted water standing in the street in front of her home. Water also stands on a second lot she owns adjoining her residence after a heavy rain preventing the mowing of the lot for long periods of time. Ms. Burger has unsuccessfully sought to connect to a sewer system by petitions for sewer connection on at least- three (3) occasions and has laid additional drainage lines to help solve her problem. In the spring, summer and fall of 1979, she had severe water problems. Ms. Burger believes the elevation of Lot number 6 would cause further water damage to her property, and that a septic tank on Lot number 6 would add more sewage problems to the area A witness for Petitioner, Alan Flandreau, who lives with his wife and three (3) children on lot number 13 adjoining Lot number 5 in the subdivision, has a septic tank that fills up in rainy weather and runs into the street, resulting in a stench and green slime. Flandreau has had his septic tank pumped out a number of times since 1968, when he bought his home. His lot is low, and water drains onto his property from other lots. A witness for Petitioner, Burl Crowe, owns Lot number 11 and lives on Lot number 12. Lot number 11 adjoins Lot number 6, and Lot number 12 borders on the property of Petitioner Burger. Crowe has lived on Lot number 12 for fourteen (14) years and on many occasions had water entering his garage and standing in his yard when it rains. He has seen Lot number 6 under water and water standing on the street in front of his house, A witness for the Respondents was Gerald Goulish, the professional engineer who prepared the site modification plan (Respondent's Exhibits 4 and 8). Goulish has studied the site together with Rule 10D-6 of the Florida Administrative Code (infra) and believes the plan to fill the location of the septic tank site will cause the soil to percolate and evaporate and the proposed elevation of Lot number 6 two (2) feet will cause the water to drain toward the street and not onto adjoining property. He suggested that the adjoining and adjacent property owners cooperate and construct common swales to eliminate the surface water problems. A second witness for the Respondents was Burt Fraser, a sanitary supervisor for the Pinellas County Health Department, who denied the first application for installation of a septic tank on Lot number 6 but notified Respondent Rutkowski that the lot could be modified. Thereafter, he wrote Rutkowski that a modification plan had been received which meets the minimum requirements of the Florida Administrative Code. Fraser stated that he will issue a permit for construction of a septic tank upon completion of the administrative hearing procedure unless directed not to issue such a permit. Fraser agreed that the conditions as described by Petitioner Burger and her witnesses are accurate, and that the subdivision has problems which will not be solved until sanitary sewers are installed, but he believes that he has no alternative except to issue a permit if an applicant meets the requirements of Rule 10D-6.25 Florida Administrative Code. He knows of no requirement to make a study of adjacent and adjoining properties, and Respondent Department has not made a study. There are seven (7) houses in the sixteen (16) lot subdivision. The area is low and subject to flooding because of soil texture. There is an undisputed drainage problem in the area which causes a septic tank problem to the residents. The addition of more houses and septic tanks will increase the already serious drainage conditions which are public health nuisances. The Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, submitted proposed findings of fact, memorandum of law and a proposed recommended order. These instruments were considered in the writing of this order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in or are inconsistent with factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that Respondent Rutkowski's application for a permit for the construction of a septic tank on Lot number 6 be denied without prejudice to the Respondent to reapply if there should be a change in circumstances. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of April 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED Barbara Dell McPherson, Esquire Department of HRS Post Office Box 5046 Clearwater, Florida 33518 William W. Gilkey, Esquire Richards Building 1253 Park Street Clearwater, Florida 33516 Mr. Alex Rutkowski 30 North Evergreen Clearwater, Florida
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department should grant and approve Petitioner’s application as a septic tank contractor.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health is the agency responsible for the registration of septic tank contractors and the authorization of septic tank companies. The Department of Health enforces the statutes and rules pertaining to the registration and authorization of septic tank contractors and septic tank companies pursuant to Chapters 381 and 489, Part 3, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner, Gerald D. Thompson, applied to the Department of Health to be a registered septic tank contractor. The Department received his application on July 3, 1996. The Petitioner’s application indicates that he had been convicted of a crime related to septic tank contracting and had had an enforcement action taken against him. The attachment to the application reflected that both events had occurred to the Petitioner. The Petitioner had been adjudged guilty, in Flagler County Circuit Court, on January 18, 1997, of the attempted felony littering by disposing of domestic sewage on private property in an area not permitted for such use. Petitioner’s previous septic tank contracting registration had been revoked for two (2) years in a settlement agreement between the Petitioner and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The revocation was effective June 1, 1994. The Settlement Agreement stipulated that the Petitioner could reapply for registration as a septic tank contractor upon the expiration of the two (2) years stipulated in the agreement under the rules in effect at the time of the new application. The Settlement Agreement was signed by Petitioner and by Petitioner’s counsel. On September 6, 1996, the Petitioner issued its denial of the Petitioner’s instant application on the grounds that he failed to meet the qualifications listed in Rule 10D- 6.072(3)(d)(e)(f), Florida Administrative Code. It is uncontroverted that the Petitioner had his prior registration as a septic tank contractor revoked and that he was adjusted guilty of attempted felony littering in a case-related septic tank contracting.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner’s application for registration as a septic tank contractor be denied because he was convicted of a crime involving contracting and his license had been revoked within five (5) years prior to his application. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry D. Thompson 500 Walker Street Holly Hill, Florida 32117 Charlene Petersen, Esquire Chief Legal Counsel Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 1997. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Dr. James Howell, Secretary Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 306 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson, Esquire Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 102E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent’s license as a septic tank contractor should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is registered with Petitioner as a septic tank contractor and authorized to provide septic tank contracting services, holding Registration No. SR0890264 and Authorization No. SA0900453. David B. Grimes is employed by Bay County Health Department as an inspector responsible for the inspection of on- site sewage systems. On August 22, 2007, Mr. Grimes inspected an on-site sewage treatment disposal system (OSTDS) being constructed by Respondent at 5431 John Pitts Road, Panama City, Florida. The OSTDS failed to meet the minimum rule requirements due to a defective tank and improperly installed drainfield. The tank was defective because its dimensions were smaller than the dimensions required to enable the tank to have sufficient liquid capacity for the system being installed. Mr. Grimes told Respondent that he could not approve the system. Upon learning that the system would not be approved, Respondent, who is a large man and larger than the inspector, threatened to do bodily harm to Mr. Grimes and stated, “I am going to whip your ass”. He also used other profanity in a threatening and serious voice. The inspector began to put his tools into the tool container on the back of his truck. When the inspector attempted to close the container’s lid and leave, Respondent blocked the path of the inspector and would not let him close the truck-bed lid. Respondent insisted the system be inspected and approved so he could finish the job. Other than blocking his path, Respondent did not take any other physical action towards harming Mr. Grimes. Other than with his hands, the evidence did not show that Respondent had the means to cause serious harm to Mr. Grimes. However, Mr. Grimes felt some fear for his safety and was very uncomfortable. He refused to approve the system and left the premises. He called his supervisor to report the incident and request a second inspection by his supervisor. Later that day, Mr. Grimes and his supervisor inspected the OSTDS. Respondent was not present. The inspector concurred with Mr. Grimes’ findings and the system was not approved. On August 23, 2007, Mr. Grimes made a second visit to the property to continue the inspection of the OSTDS. The drainfield was corrected and a new and larger tank was installed. The dimensions of the tank were again smaller than required to meet the liquid capacity of the tank. Additionally, the tank had a gap in the seal around the intake feed line. It was, therefore, defective and could not be approved. Mr. Grimes told Respondent that he could not approve the system. Respondent again grew angry when he was told the new tank was also defective and would not be approved. Respondent stated that Mr. Grimes was the worst inspector in the area and made other derogatory remarks towards him. Respondent also threatened to make trouble with the inspector’s employment and/or “get him fired” unless the system was passed. The evidence did not show that Respondent made any physical moves toward Respondent or otherwise impeded his inspection. The inspector was again fearful for his personal safety although the evidence did not demonstrate a reasonable basis for such fear. The OSTDS was not approved and Mr. Grimes left the work site. There was no evidence that Respondent followed through with interfering with Mr. Grimes’ employment. At best, the evidence showed that Respondent’s threat to interfere with the inspector’s employment was mere hyperbole. Such comments are common. While silly and rude, the mere threat of an employment action does not rise to the level of being unlawful and does not demonstrate misconduct sufficient to impose discipline on Respondent’s license. On the other hand, the actions of Respondent towards the inspector when he threatened to do bodily harm to the inspector, and blocking his attempts to leave unless he approved the system, did constitute gross misconduct on the part of Respondent. Even though Respondent’s actions were unsuccessful, Respondent’s words coupled with his conduct go beyond mere hyperbole and constitute an unlawful threat towards a public official to influence the official’s actions. Respondent’s actions did not cause physical or monetary harm to any person. In the past, Respondent was disciplined by letter of warning in Case Number SC0478 in 2000, for covering a new installation in violation of the system construction standards and by citation in Case Number SC0591 in 2001, for creation of a sanitary nuisance, negligence, misconduct, and falsification of inspection report. The instant violation is a second violation for misconduct and a repeat violation of the rules of the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license be disciplined for violations of the Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022 and that his Septic Tank Contractor License No. SR0890264 and Authorization No. SA0900453 be fined in the amount of $500.00 and suspended for 90 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire Department of Health Northwest Law Office 1295 West Fairfield Drive Pensacola, Florida 32501 G. D. Yon, Jr. Yon Septic Tank Co. 2988 Hwy 71 Marianna, Florida 32446 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Ana M. Viamonte-Ros, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Josefina M. Tamayó, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact David D. Boak, Petitioner, owns a 3/4 acre lot at 9602 East Flora Street on which he proposes to put a two-bedroom house trailer. The area is rural in nature. There is no sewage service to the area and none is currently planned. Soil samples taken at the site show that from 9 inches to 48 inches below the surface the soil is a mixture of Manatee and Pompano fine sands which have poor percolation qualities. Soil Survey for Hillsborough County (Exhibit 1) describes the limitations of these soils for septic tank use as severe with wetness. Petitioner contends that he has lived on this property for 21 years and has had his septic tank pumped out once, 11 years ago; that he has never seen this property flooded; nor has he seen water standing on the property more than minutes following a heavy rain. Respondent's witnesses testified the water table at this site is 13 inches below the surface and septic tanks will not work properly in this area. When Petitioner's initial application for a permit was denied, he applied for a waiver. The application for waiver was presented to the review group pursuant to the provisions of Rule 10D-6.45(1), Florida Administrative Code, and the review group recommended the waiver be granted. However, the Staff Director, Health Program Office, denied the waiver and this appeal followed. The Hillsborough County Aviation Authority has condemned the land in this area, including that owned by Petitioner, for use as a county airport site. That condemnation proceeding is currently in litigation. If this property is ultimately taken for airport purposes, Petitioner will have no use for the variance here sought. Testimony was presented that the soil conditions plus the wetness factor make the site unsuitable for the installation of a septic tank. No evidence was presented regarding the pollution of surface waters by a septic tank in this area or whether public health will or will not be impaired if a septic tank is installed.
Findings Of Fact Rayco Properties, Inc. d/b/a Woody's Septic Tank Service is a company authorized by the State of Florida to perform septic tank construction and repair services. All of its contractors and other employees have practiced in the septic system business for many years. The registered contractor, who is the company qualifier, is the person responsible for all contracting services performed by the septic company and for compliance with the applicable regulatory statutes and rules. Donald P. Roberts is a registered septic tank contractor for Woody's Septic Tank Service. At all times material to these causes, he was the company's sole qualifier. At all times material, he was responsible for obtaining all necessary permits for the company. DHRS is the agency responsible for septic contractor registration, septic tank company authorization, and the enforcement of the statutes and rules pertaining to registration and authorization pursuant to Chapters 381 and 489, Part III, F.S. and Chapter 10D-6 F.A.C. This includes the authority to cite, fine, and to suspend or revoke registrations and authorizations. Donald P. Roberts has never previously been cited by the agency. Before 1991, permits were not required for repairs to septic systems. However, at all times material to these causes, repair, installation, and abandonment permits had to be obtained from DHRS, usually through its local units in the respective county public health unit offices. These offices take septic system permit applications, perform site evaluations, issue permits, and perform final inspections. At all times material, no permits were required for replacing dosing pumps, fixing cracked dosing tanks, maintenance of existing systems or service of existing systems. No permits were necessary for replacing a D (or distribution) box, which is a non-mechanical, non-electrical item that serves as a distribution point for pipes. At all times material, the act of installing a dosing tank was a repair that required a permit. At all times material, the act of abandoning a septic tank (pumping it out, punching a hole in it, filling it with dirt and covering it or hauling it away) also required a permit. The standard operating procedure for obtaining a septic system permit is as follows: 1) the contractor or landowner submits a permit application with a plot/site plan to the agency's county office; 2) the agency conducts a site evaluation, sometimes including soil borings and/or a percolation test; 3) the agency reviews and issues the permit; 4) the contractor performs the permitted work; 5) the contractor calls the agency for inspection before covering up with earth; 6) agency inspection occurs and the project is approved OR the contractor is told of a violation, perhaps cited therefor, and must fix any problems pointed out by the agency inspector. If there is a violation to be corrected, the contractor is supposed to call DHRS for re-inspections until the problem is solved and the job is approved by the agency. Some jobs are so routine that some county offices do not do a site inspection before septic system work is done or reinspect after septic system work is done. This appears to be discretionary within the local office. However, if a violation is noted, the problem must be corrected and reinspected or negotiated out. See Finding of Fact 15. An approved plot/site plan becomes part of the permit when the permit is issued, and contractors are expected to adhere to the combined items. Permits state the requirements for the project or job. If a contractor experiences problems on a particular job, such as a well that does not show up on the plot/site plan, he is expected to contact the local public health unit to try to resolve the issue. "Resolution" has traditionally been to revise the plot/site plan or modify the permit. In past years, this has been an informal procedure, sometimes accomplished by telephone calls from the field, sometimes by negotiations in the public health office. All but one of the alleged violations (the Mahalik property) in these causes arose after DHRS decided to strictly require contractors to stop work and apply for and receive a formal modification of the permit or a new permit when unforeseen problems were encountered on any particular job. This procedure was codified in new Rule 60D-6.044(5) F.A.C., effective January 3, 1995. At approximately the same time, DHRS also adopted a policy of forbidding its personnel to discuss such field problems with, or to issue permits to, anyone other than the qualifying registered contractor for each authorized septic tank company. The agency has pointed to no specific statute or rule which provides that only a qualifying registered contractor may pull a DHRS permit or which forbids DHRS personnel discussing modifying a permit with any other company employees. However, it is clear that only registered contractors may pull permits. Two exceptions are recognized: A landowner or homeowner may pull a permit for septic system work with septic system contractors as their "agents"; and in locations where DHRS has an agreement with a city or county plumbing permit office, DHRS acknowledges the local plumbing permits and does not require owners or plumbers to also pull a separate septic system permit from DHRS's local public health unit. I. Case No. 95-5973 Deltona Hills Golf & Country Club Respondents applied for a permit to do repairs to a septic system for Deltona Golf & Country Club on August 7, 1995. A dosing tank is a mechanical device which lifts wastewater to a drainfield. DHRS issued a permit to Respondent to replace the dosing tank with a 900 gallon tank. The original tank being replaced was a 50 gallon tank. Respondents properly abandoned the existing 50 gallon dosing tank and installed the high water alarm, but they installed a 750 gallon tank, contrary to the express terms of the permit. Travis Vickers, then DHRS's Environmental Specialist in the Volusia County Health Unit, ultimately cited Respondents for not complying with the permit and for not calling for re-inspection after the discrepancy in tank size was brought to their attention. Respondents' reason for installing the 750 gallon tank was that they had used a 3:1 ratio to the drainfield which is codified in the agency rules. Thereby, they determined that a 714 gallon tank would be the ideal size tank to install. Then they simply installed the next largest size tank without reference to the permit. Respondents' employees also maintained that when Mr. Vickers notified them they had installed the wrong size tank, they contacted someone else in the local county public health unit and that person orally approved the smaller size tank they had already installed. Therefore, they did not call Mr. Vickers again for re-inspection. The person who supposedly gave the oral authorization was not called to testify, and no written permit modifications or amendment were made, as required by the agency rules then in effect. In this light, Respondents' excuses for failing to install the 900 gallon tank according to permit specifications and failure to call for a re-inspection are not credible. Therefore, it is clear that Respondents installed a smaller tank contrary to the permit specifications and received no modification of permit as required by agency rules in effect at the material time. In making the foregoing findings of fact, I have not overlooked the fact that there are several ways to calculate the appropriate size of a dosing tank; that during his testimony, Mr. Vickers, himself, demonstrated at least two ways of calculating; or that Mr. Vickers' 900 gallon figure on the permit arose in part from considerations in addition to the published agency rules, which additional considerations were the result of workshops with septic system contractors and DHRS personnel which had been reduced to written form in a document nicknamed "the memo from hell," to which Respondent had no access in August 1995. However, that memorandum was designed to help DHRS personnel interpret the code and issue the permit. Its use by agency personnel in issuing a permit does not absolve the contractor of the responsibility to install the system according to the permit as issued, nor does it allow the contractor to unilaterally recalculate tank capacity at will on some other basis. At Deltona Golf & Country Club, Respondents simply did not follow the permit requirements or replace the wrong size tank and call for re-inspection. The fact that Respondents were able to demonstrate alternative methodologies of computation does not change those salient facts. Case No. 95-5973 Pine Street, Enterprise Florida a/k/a the Gleasons' Job Respondents applied for a repair permit for 450 Pine Street, Enterprise, Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Gleason, referred to by some witnesses as "the homeowners," were actually leasing the property. DHRS issued the permit to Respondents on October 3, 1995. It was valid for 90 days. The repair job occurred during a rainy period when the water table was high. Respondents had to drill wellpoints to lower the water table. Further, they were hindered by rain, mud, muck, and debris on the property. A two days' job turned into 15 days' work. Respondents finally installed the drainfield in a slightly different location than the approved location shown on the plot/site plan. Although contrary to the permit, Respondents' installation met minimum 10D-6 F.A.C. requirements, including those for setbacks. Respondents' employees testified that they chose to place the drainfield in an unpermitted location so as accommodate the Gleasons' urgent need for a septic system, because they considered the different location necessary to comply with Chapter 10D-6 F.A.C.'s setback requirements, and because the northeast corner where the drainfield had been permitted was covered with too much muck, and too many stumps, old tires, and pieces of tin and fencing to proceed there. In the experience of Respondent Donald P. Roberts, and Willie Suggs and Jerry Thompson, who also are registered septic contractors, drainfields are not always installed according to the plot/site plan, but the location may be negotiated with DHRS prior to inspection. Respondents claimed to have received oral authorization to relocate the drainage field from an official in the local public health unit, but that person did not testify. Also, Respondents admitted they never applied for a permit modification in writing or obtained an amended permit, as required after January 3, 1995. Therefore, the concept of an oral permit modification is not credible. See, Findings of Fact 15-16. Mr. Vickers inspected the work performed by Respondents on October 17, 1995. He arrived five hours late, creating bad feelings in Respondents. On October 18, 1995, Mr. Vickers notified Respondents that they had located the drainfield in a different area than the area shown on the plot/site plan and approved by the permit. After the violation notice was issued, Mr. Vickers refused to talk to anyone associated with the Respondent company except Donald P. Roberts, the qualified registered contractor, thereby creating further bad feelings in Respondents. To put it mildly, communication between the parties broke down completely. The Gleasons had sent a demand that Respondents complete the Pine Street project by October 25, 1995, but then, approximately October 18, 1995, they hired Acme Septic to complete the project. On October 19, 1995, Acme pulled a DHRS permit for the same repair project in which Respondents were mired at the Pine Street location. Acme then installed the drainfield in the same general area as shown on Respondents' permit's original plot/site plan. In doing so, Acme used Respondents' materials and built on their prior work. Acme successfully installed the drainfield as required by the permit and all agency rules. Under the circumstances, Respondents felt they had no duty to call Mr. Vickers for re-inspection of their discarded work. Despite considerable use of the word "abandonment," Respondents technically remain charged only with failure to comply with the permit and failure to call for re-inspection on the Pine Street Job. Case No. 96-0573 Avocado Street a/k/a The Hale Project The Avocado Street Project was a private residence to which Respondents were originally called to do repair work on a septic system. Many septic repairs do not require a permit. See Findings of Fact 8- Also, repair permits are not required where a problem is discovered on a larger project which has already been permitted, but if contractors discover a problem during the course of an unpermitted repair, which problem would otherwise require its own permit, contractors were expected, post-January 3, 1995, to stop work and obtain an (amended) permit. See Rule 10D-6.044(5) F.A.C. and Finding of Fact 16. Replacement of "like kind" parts of a dosing tank such as a pump, do not require a permit. Repair of a crack in a dosing or septic tank does not require a permit. Replacement of an entire dosing tank or septic tank unless there is already an umbrella permit does require a new permit. See above, Findings of Fact 9 and 10. It is not standard practice for DHRS to inspect/evaluate the site before a replacement permit or an abandonment permit is issued. Such inspections are discretionary in practice and such permits are often issued on the spot at the time of application. See Findings of Fact 12 and 13. At Avocado Street, Respondents pumped out the Hales' septic tank and discovered that the dosing pump was not working. Respondents replaced the pump, but also discovered that the existing dosing tank was inadequate. Due to the inadequacy of the existing dosing tank, dosing pumps repeatedly had burned up. Respondents sent an employee to pull a DHRS permit for replacement of the existing dosing tank, which permit they felt could be pulled immediately. Then they proceeded, without permit in hand, to replace the dosing pump and install a larger dosing tank. Andrew Trapp, DHRS' Environmental Health Specialist in the Orange City office, became aware of the Avocado Street situation only because of a phone call from an employee of the Respondent company asking if a permit had ever been issued. Because a permit never had been issued, Trapp's suspicion was aroused. Therefore, he performed the discretionary onsite inspection and found the new dosing tank. The Avocado Street work of Respondents did not represent a public nuisance. The agency intentionally and violationally issued an after-the-fact permit to Mr. Hale with an employee of Respondent as Mr. Hale's agent on August 23-24, 1995. Any other suggested dates for this permit application are rejected as computer error. The project was reinspected by agency personnel who oversaw Respondents' employees repair a tank leak. DHRS finally approved the whole project. II. Case 96-0573 Clyde Morris Boulevard a/k/a The IWS or BFI Job The Clyde Morris Boulevard property was leased by IWS/BFI from the City of Daytona Beach. Mastercraft Plumbing was the prime contractor responsible for connecting an existing septic system on the Clyde Morris Boulevard property to a public sewer system. Mastercraft hired Respondents to handle the abandonment of a septic tank which Mastercraft was replacing. Abandonment is more fully described above in Finding of Fact 10. Although DHRS presented some hearsay to the effect that Mastercraft expected Respondents to obtain the DHRS abandonment permit, there is no direct evidence for such hearsay to support or explain. Contrary evidence was presented that persons within the IWS/BFI hierarchies had led Respondents to believe that Mastercraft had pulled the necessary DHRS permit or an umbrella plumbing permit which would cover Respondents' abandonment activities. See, Finding of Fact 19. However, there is no direct, competent, or conclusive evidence one way or the other. Respondents' actual abandonment work was completed on or about April 10, 1995. Respondents charged Mastercraft for the work but not for pulling any abandonment permit from DHRS, because Respondents did not pull any such permit. Once Respondents discovered that Mastercraft had not pulled the DHRS septic permit, Jerry Thompson, as an employee of Respondent company, pulled a permit as Mastercraft's agent on May 9, 1995. As previously stated, pre- inspection is not standard practice and DHRS abandonment permits are often issued in a single day. II. Case No. 96-0573 Bridal (or Briddle) Path Lane a/k/a Oakridge Acres a/k/a Mrs. Mahalik's Property Respondents were called to repair a septic tank at Mrs. Mahalik's home on Bridal Path Lane in October 1994. Most of the work did not require DHRS permits. See Findings of Fact 8-10. Respondents charged Mrs. Mahalik, among other things, for installing a new 300 gallon dosing tank. Approximately four months later, in February 1995, Mrs. Mahalik telephoned the Flagler County Public Health Unit and asked whether Respondents' repair had been permitted. DHRS had no record of it. An after-the-fact application was made for the job and a permit for the Mahalik job was issued in March 1995 to Mrs. Mahalik with Respondent company as her agent. Replacement of a dosing tank required a permit under Rule 10D-6.043 F.A.C. in 1994 but Rule 10D-6.044(5) F.A.C., requiring the stoppage of work while applying for an amended permit, did not exist until January 3, 1995.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order finding Respondents Donald P. Roberts and Rayco Properties, Inc. d/b/a Woody's Septic Tank Service guilty as set out in the Conclusions of Law and assessing against both Donald P. Roberts and the company, jointly and severally a total fine of $4,450 and suspending both for 120 days from the date of the final order. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of November, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 1996.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent installed a septic system without a permit; whether a permit was required for the installation; whether the installation was of inadequate size; whether the Respondent caused the disconnection of an existing system without a permit, and whether that system was improperly abandoned. A related issue is whether the proposed $1,500.00 fine should be imposed if the violations are proven or what, if any, fine is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged, in pertinent part, by its organic statutes and rules, with regulating the practice of septic tank contracting and the installation and repair of septic tank and drainfield waste disposal systems and with licensure of such contractors pursuant to Rule Chapter 64E, Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent, Trammel Fowler (Fowler), is a licensed septic tank contractor regulated by the statutes and rules cited herein. Fowler has never been issued any citations or been subjected to discipline under the relevant statutes and rules enforced by the Petitioner with regard to septic system design, construction, installation and repair. He has worked in the septic tank installation business for 19 years. The Respondent installed a septic tank and drainfield system at 5642 Old Bethel Road, Crestview, Florida, a residential construction project (home) in 1993. The original septic tank system installed by the Respondent was finally approved on June 11, 1993. The home site at issue was originally designed to have the septic tank and drainfield system located in the backyard of the residence. Plumbing errors by the general contractor and the plumbing sub-contractor caused the plumbing system to be "stubbed-out" to the front of the house so that the septic tank and drainfield system was installed in the front of the house rather than in the backyard as originally designed and approved by the Petitioner. Additional excavation work was required at the site, which caused the soil type to change in the front of the house where the septic tank and drainfield were to be installed. This in turn required the Okaloosa County Health Department to require additional drainfield square footage to be added to the previously approved 600 square feet of drainfield, so that the drainfield installed in the front of the house by the Respondent ultimately encompassed 800 square feet. Thus, although the original site plans approved by the Okaloosa County Health Department were not followed, subsequent modifications to the system resulted in the septic tank system being fully approved by the Petitioner (through the Okaloosa County Health Department), on June 11, 1993. In the ensuing months, landscaping problems at the site caused surface water to collect around and above the drainfield area. This, coupled with a continuous water flow from the residence caused by leaking appliances, and particularly the commode, resulted in raw or partially treated wastewater becoming exposed on the surface of the ground, as a sanitary nuisance. This was caused as the septic tank and drainfield system became saturated by the excess water from the two referenced sources. This caused the failure of that septic tank and drainfield system within nine months of its original installation, as was noted on March 4, 1994, by the Department's representative Mr. Sims. It is undisputed that the Respondent, Mr. Fowler, did not cause or contribute to this septic tank system failure. He constructed the system as designed and approved by the Department (or as re- approved by the Department in June 1993 with the relocation of the system to the front yard of the residence and with the augmentation of the drainfield referenced above). The Department was aware of the failure of the original system in the front yard of the residence as early as March 1994. There is no evidence that an actual permit for repair of that system was ever issued. Mr. Fowler maintains that the Department had a policy at that time of authorizing repairs to systems that failed within one year of original installation, as this one did, without a written, formal permit process, but rather by informal approval and inspection of the repair work. The Petitioner disagrees and Mr. Sims, the Petitioner's representative, states that a permit was required, although no fee was charged. Indeed in 1994 a rule was enacted authorizing issuance of a permit for repair work for systems that failed within one year of original installation without being accompanied by the charging of a fee for that permit. In any event, prior to the rule change, repairs were authorized for failures within one year by the Department without a permit, but were required to be inspected and a notation made in the permit file or in some cases on a "nuisance complaint card," so authorization and inspection was supposed to be documented. When by the time the repair was effected by the installation of the backyard septic tank and drainfield system or "overflow-system" in February 1995, the rule change requiring issuance of a repair permit without fee had become effective. There is evidence that the Respondent was aware of this since, sometime in 1994, he had obtained a permit authorizing repair of a septic tank and drainfield site on "Windsor Circle" as shown by the Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 7 in evidence. Be that as it may, the Respondent contends that Mr. Brown, the environmental specialist and inspector for the Department, met with him at the repair site in question and at least verbally authorized the repair of the system by installation of the septic tank and drainfield in the backyard of the residence; to be connected to the sewer line which also was connected with the malfunctioning system in the front yard of that residence. Mr. Brown in his testimony purports to have no memory of authorizing the repair work or inspecting it and seems confused as to whether he met with the Respondent at the site. The Petitioner acknowledges, as does Mr. Brown, that he has had problems since that time with memory lapses, attendant to two life-threatening injuries, which have apparently caused problems with memory loss. He purportedly suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome and is taking medication with regard thereto. There is no dispute that he has problems with recall. Moreover, there is evidence that Mr. Brown met with the Respondent at an address on Old Bethel Road for some reason, as shown by a notation in Department records in February 1995. Consequently, while there is no doubt that the repair work in question was done without a written permit, there is evidence to corroborate Mr. Fowler's testimony to the effect that Mr. Brown inspected and reviewed the repair system while it was actually being installed by Fowler and approved it. Thus, it is possible that Mr. Fowler was under a good faith impression that the Department had a policy of inspecting and approving repair work without there being a permit related to it at the time when he installed the secondary "overflow" system at the Old Bethel Road site in February of 1995, even though that impression may have been legally mistaken, because the rule requiring a permit at no fee for repair work was already in effect. In any event, Mr. Fowler installed the so-called "repair system" in February 1995, which he has termed an "overflow" system designed to augment the treatment capability of the previously-approved system installed in the front yard at that residence. That system, as found above, consisted of 800 square feet of drainfield. The "overflow" system installed in the backyard by Mr. Fowler in February 1995 without the permit, has only 300 square feet of drainfield. This is clearly well below the minimum required for such a system and tends to support Mr. Fowler's testimony that it was intended really as a repair job in the form of a overflow system to handle extra flow that the original system in the front yard would not be able to handle in performing the intended treatment function. It is unlikely that Mr. Fowler, with or without a permit, would have installed a system he clearly would know to be of only one-half (or less) of the adequate size and treatment capability for the residence, if it had been intended to be a separately functioning independent treatment system for the residence. In fact, the "overflow" system was connected through a "T" or "Y" fitting in the sewer line outfall pipe from the house with the original septic tank and drainfield system in the front yard of the residence, so that flow could go to both systems simultaneously from the residential sewer line. There is conflicting testimony as to whether such a dually draining system could work properly. One septic tank contractor testified that it could and could adequately split the flow between the two septic tank and drainfield systems so as to perform adequate treatment without backups or overflows, while a witness for the Department testified that such a split-fitting could cause stoppages and therefore sewage backups. Be that as it may, the installation of the system in a connected fashion to the original system supports Mr. Fowler's testimony and contention that the system installed in the backyard, with 300 square feet of drainfield, was intended as a repair system merely to augment the treatment function being provided by the poorly functioning original system in the front yard. In fact, the preponderant evidence shows that, with the elimination of leakage from the appliances in the house and the correction of the water-pooling problem caused by improper landscaping, that the system would function adequately thus connected. Indeed, when the plumber or the general contractor for the residence disconnected the original front-yard septic tank system from the overflow system, so that all of the sewage in the house went to the overflow system with the smaller drainfield, that system still functioned adequately for one and one-half years until failure in approximately August 1997. It is undisputed that the Respondent had no part in the unreported and unapproved disconnection of the original front system from the overflow tank and drainfield system in the backyard. The evidence shows a preponderant likelihood that the total system would have functioned adequately indefinitely had the two remained connected so that sewage could flow to the front yard system with the 800 square feet of drainfield, with the excess water flow problems referenced above already corrected. Mr. Brown, the Department environmental specialist and inspector, did not recall specifically whether he had been at the Old Bethel Road site at issue, but testified that it was definitely possible. He testified that the time entry notation he made admitted into evidence as Exhibit No. 3, may have reflected an inspection for a repair job at the Old Bethel Road site. Mr. Brown admitted that he was present on Old Bethel Road in February 1995, but did not recall his purpose of being there. His testimony thus did not contradict the testimony of Trammel Fowler. Mr. Brown also testified that he was aware of problems at the Old Bethel Road site and testified that Mr. Wykle of the Department and Mr. Sims were also aware of problems at the Old Bethel Road site. Douglas Sims of the Department testified that the two systems, the original front tank and drainfield and the overflow tank and drainfield installed in the backyard by Mr. Fowler could not work together if they were connected. This is belied by testimony of a septic tank contractor, Ken Arnett, who was a rebuttal witness called by the Department. Mr. Arnett testified that he would expect a system of the type contemplated by Mr. Fowler and Mr. Brown to function properly. It thus seems from the preponderant weight of the evidence that the reason the Old Bethel Road residential system quit functioning properly, in approximately August 1997, is that the plumbing contractor, at the behest of the residential building contractor for the residence constructed there, disconnected the overflow system from the original front yard system, so that all the house effluent was going to the overflow system, which was never intended to have a complete, standard-sized drainfield for such a dwelling, prevalent soil conditions, elevations and the like. Mr. Brown, a long time employee of the Department was familiar with the statewide rules affecting septic tank contractors and installation and familiar with local department rules and policies relating to repairs. He testified that for a period of time in the early 1990's, there was an unwritten policy by the Okaloosa County Health Department that some repair permits would be waived for certain repairs provided a final inspection by the Department was made. He stated that if the septic tank system failed within one year under certain circumstances, a repair permit would be waived as long as the Department was aware of the repair. Mr. Brown could not recall when the policy ended, but estimated it to be sometime between 1995 and 1997. He called the discontinuation of the local policy to waive repair permits a "gradual phase out." Mr. Brown also recalled that the Okaloosa County Health Department's unwritten, local policy concerning waiver of repair permits was known and relied upon by septic tank contractors in certain situations. Cecil Rogers, a long-time septic tank contractor who dealt with the Okaloosa County Health Department regularly, testified that there was a standard policy to allow repairs to be made to septic tank systems that failed within one year without requiring a permit. There thus seems to have been an unwritten policy or practice among septic tank contractors and the Okaloosa County Health Department to the effect that if a system failed within one year and the contractor was willing to repair the system without cost to the homeowner, that the permit would be waived as long as the system or repair could be inspected by the Department. The system originally installed which failed appears to have been installed before the effective date of the rule requiring that a no-charge permit be obtained for repair work. The repair work in question, the installation of the overflow system, appears to have been effected after the effective date of the new rule. It also appears that Mr. Fowler knew of the new rule because of his obtaining a permit for repair work at the Windsor Circle repair site in 1994. It also would appear that Mr. Brown likely verbally approved and inspected the repair work at the subject site, giving Mr. Fowler the impression that he was authorized to go ahead and make the repair by installing the overflow system. Thus, although he may have technically violated the rule requiring a no-charge permit for repair work, it does not appear that he had any intent to circumvent the authority of the Department, since the preponderant evidence shows that Mr. Brown knew of and approved the installation. Thus, in this regard, a minimal penalty would be warranted. Moreover, after the original septic system at the Old Bethel Road site failed in March of 1994, through no fault of Fowler, Fowler paid to make the repair by installing the overflow system at his own expense. The original new home purchaser at that site, and Mr. Fowler's customer, Mr. Wayne Aaberg, thus did not sustain any personal expenses for the repair work performed by Fowler. The Petitioner did not present any evidence to establish that the repairs made by Fowler caused the septic tank system at Old Bethel Road to fail. The Petitioner, through the testimony of environmental manager Douglas Sims, itself established that the plumbing contractor actually disconnected the front system from the overflow system and made a physical connection only to the rear system installed by Mr. Fowler, rather than Fowler, and without Mr. Fowler's knowledge. The Petitioner, apparently through Douglas Sims, failed to conduct an investigation to determine which party actually was responsible for physically abandoning or disconnecting the original front system from the home and from the overflow system prior to the charges being filed against Mr. Fowler. Mr. Fowler did not cause the physical disconnection of the two systems and the residence and is not a licensed plumber. He did not, during the course of his contracting business for septic tanks and drainfields make physical connections or disconnections to dwelling units, but instead left that to the responsibility of the general contractor and/or the plumbing contractor. The Petitioner presented no evidence establishing any monetary harm to any customer of the Respondent. The disconnection of the systems which caused the failure was not shown to have been the responsibility nor fault of Mr. Fowler. Rather, any monetary harm to the homeowner who owned the residence when the failure occurred in August 1997, after the original repair installation had been paid for by Mr. Fowler was caused by the plumbing contractor and/or the general contractor, Kemp Brothers, who directed the plumbing contractor to disconnect the original front system from the overflow system. Consequently, any monetary damage caused by fixing the failure which occurred in August 1997, and which engendered the subject dispute, was not caused by Mr. Fowler. Finally, Mr. Douglas Sims of the Department, testified that he knew of two other un-permitted repairs by septic tank contractors which were known to the Department. In both of those cases, the contractors were only issued a Letter of Warning. Mr. Sims testified that if the Respondent herein had made repairs to the existing system at his own cost after the failure occurring in August of 1997, then the Department would have only issued a Letter of Warning. Mr. Fowler paid to fix the original system in February 1995, but felt that monetary responsibility for the August 1997 failure was not his fault and thus did not offer to pay for that.
Recommendation Accordingly, having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that the Respondent effected repair work to a septic tank and drainfield system without the required written permit but that, in view of the above-found and concluded extenuating circumstances, that a minimal penalty of a letter of warning be issued to the Respondent by the Department and that the citation for violation, in all other respects, be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire Department of Health Northwest Law Office 1295 West Fairfield Drive Pensacola, Florida 32501 Matthew D. Bordelon, Esquire 2721 Gulf Breeze Parkway Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health Bin A00 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
